Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1234 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Ghulam Farooq vs State Ss

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1234 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Ghulam Farooq VS State Ss. 497 & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324,337A(vi), 337F(iv), 114, 147, 148, 149 & 504---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajja-i-munaqillah, ghair-jaifah mudihah, abettor present when offence is committed, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace---Bail, refusal of---Severe /several injuries to multiple persons of complainant party---One applicant/accused was said to have caused hatchet injuries to a prosecution witness including, an injury under S.337A(vi), P.P.C, punishable for ten years---Second applicant/accused was said to have caused injuries to the complainant, and one of the injuries was under S.337F(iv), P.P.C, punishable for five years; while third applicant/accused had caused an injury to a lady of complainant party which injury had been opined by Medico-legal Officer as falling under S.337A(vi) P.P.C, punishable for ten years---Nature of injuries and the number of injured showed that applicants appeared at the spot with a pre-determined mind and inflicted severe and several injuries to at least four persons of complainant side---Not only individual role but collective approach of the applicants was a reflection of their intention to cause as much damage to the complainant party as possible and in exercise of such intention they severely beat the complainant party---Investigating Officer (IO) had also concluded in investigation that applicants were guilty of the offence and had referred them for a trial---No doubt, there was admitted enmity between the parties, but it cut both ways----If the complainant had a motive to implicate the accused on account of the enmity, then the accused also had a cause to wrong the complainant party---Therefore, unless the dispute was finally decided by the Trial Court, nothing favourable could be opined as far as role of the applicants was concerned, who appeared to be connected with the crime---As for delay, the record showed that on the very day complainant had approached the police and got a letter for treatment of the injured---It was the police who did not perform is duties and did not register the FIR there and then, and let the complainant leave the Police Station and come back after four days---Complainant had further explained that initially they were referred to one government hospital and from there they were sent to another Civil Hospital for treatment and after getting treatment, he lodged the FIR---Injuries caused by applicants to injured, prima facie, were serious in nature, punishable upto ten years in most cases---Case had recently been challaned, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to let the Trial Court frame the charge and examine material witnesses first---Applicants were seeking bail without showing any mala fide on the part of complainant to falsely implicate them---Concession of pre-arrest bail was only for innocent persons, who from the face of record appeared to be falsely implicated in non-bailable offences---Applicants were not entitled for concession of pre/ post-arrest bail---Bail was refused to the applicants, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1234 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Ghulam Farooq vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1234 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR